Without a regulatory body it would be too easy for an unqualified person to pose as an electrician, doctor, dentist or lawyer. Do you really want someone with no experience or training wiring your house, pulling your teeth, operating on your knee, or defending you at trial?
On the building front, this is BS. I was an electrician in the UK, and because of the regulatory capture here in Canada it's not worth my time to become an electrician.
I'm completely unqualified as an electrician here in Canada, but I have more varied experience with electrical circuits, safety testing and literally everything to do with the job than 99% of electricians here in Canada (and the US for that matter).
I can tell you the very simple system that works for the rest of the construction industry outside of those requiring "qualifications". It's called permits and paid on completion. If the electrician doesn't pass on his permit, it doesn't reach completion and you don't pay. Why does this system work for framers, brick layers and every other trade, but it doesn't work for an electrician. Sorry that's fishy.
I legally can do my own wiring on my own house here in Canada and get it inspected by the ESA and then the building inspector to pass permit. An electrician has to pass the permit anyway. Why can I not work on someone elses house and get the ESA to pass my work? Why can I not apply for the ESA to inspect my work and verify that I'm a competent electrician. Because I would like to tell you the truth, in that only 20% of those "qualified" electricians are actually doing work to code and more importantly safely.
My stepdad was a nuclear power electrician in the Navy, but when he got out he found out that he'd have to spend years as an apprentice to someone less qualified than him in order to be licensed.
I'm sad that you've been downvoted, though I disagree with you.
Occupational licensing doesn't just improve service quality (if it improves service quality), it also increases the price. The result is often that instead of great quality, the consumer gets nothing at all because ze can't afford it. This hits the poorest people hardest. In the USA, the poor have a famously bad time with healthcare and legal advice.
There are mechanisms other than mandatory qualifications by which consumers can measure quality, including voluntary qualifications, reputation, and price signaling. These aren't perfect, but neither are mandatory qualifications. Each mechanism has advantages and disadvantages.
With healthcare at least, there are walk-in clinics and nurse practitioners. Without licensure you wouldn't have a surfeit of cheap doctors; you'd have quacks running around representing themselves as doctors. With licensure you still have the quacks, but they call themselves "alternative medicine" and you can still go to them if you want. So there's no real loss of choice there.
Medical licensing isn't just about the right to call yourself a doctor.
Alternative medicine practicioners, or even experienced doctors who qualified in another country, are not allowed to perform the same procedures as doctors regardless of whether their patients would like them to. There is a very real loss of choice.
Internationalization is a valid point, but I'm not too choked up about my witch doctor not being allowed to perform open heart surgery. Besides, he would probably rather prescribe me water or stick needles in me instead.
Sarcasm aside, you're missing the point. Why isn't it sufficient to regulate the title 'Doctor' without preventing other practitioners from practicing?
People who wanted a traditional medical practitioner would be protected, and those who were willing to take more risk would have the choice.
Because it assumes there would be a real informed choice.
The staggering amount of money that do get paid to quacks selling stuff that is proven not to work show us very clearly that informed choice is largely a fantasy when dealing with the general public.
Homeopaths and acupuncturists don't even do normal medical procedures; that's kind of the point. If you are doing normal medical procedures, you should be licensed and regulated to make sure you know what the hell you're doing. The freedom to have an unlicensed witch doctor perform open heart surgery on you isn't an essential human right; it's not even something a sane and informed person would want to do. It's a non-issue.
Mentioning witch-doctors, homeopaths and acupuncturists is a straw man.
It seems to me that that private group of scientifically grounded medical practitioners who certified their members, but had different criteria from the state licensing system could be a very good thing.
This alternate certification would need to prove its reputation just as the institutions that certify doctors have. It seems likely that there are ways to train and certify doctors that produce better professionals than the current ones.
I doubt you're arguing that current state approved medical institutions cannot be improved upon. Why not allow alternatives to compete with them?
> It seems to me that that private group of scientifically grounded medical practitioners who certified their members, but had different criteria from the state licensing system could be a very good thing.
Could be, perhaps. Now weigh that hypothetical scenario against what actually happened in history that led to the state medical boards being created.
> I doubt you're arguing that current state approved medical institutions cannot be improved upon. Why not allow alternatives to compete with them?
Because we tried that and it didn't work last time. It got so bad that self-proclaimed "doctors" set up self-proclaimed "medical schools" as a con, paid large sums of money for cadavers "no questions asked", and ended up getting people murdered.
Do you have some legitimate problem with your state's medical board? I'd suggest you take it up with your state legislator.
Besides, there are alternatives--some states have separate osteopathic boards that license D.O.'s rather than M.D.'s, yet licensed D.O.'s have the exact same privileges as any other doctor.
Only self-proclaimed licensing boards? If you want an alternative licensing board, the osteopathic boards are it. Otherwise you're just engaging in ideological privatization for the sake of privatization; you don't even have a rationale for what's wrong with the licensing boards we do have.
I still can choose to pay more for someone with a demonstrable history, but if I want to take the risk on an unknown and save some money in the process, why shouldn't I be able to?
Because it results in uncontrollable externalities.
Take the electrician example: what happens if an unlicensed electrician kills himself when performing work? Does his family get to collect from your homeowner's insurance? Can they sue you? Are you criminally liable?
What about when you sell the house? Should you have to disclose that someone unlicensed did the wiring? What if you don't and the house ignites in a fire one night caused by improper wiring, killing the future owners, are you responsible? Is the electrician?
And you don't even want to touch the potential for abuse... regulation causes a lot of problems, I completely agree. But it serves to protect the public; we're effectively paying for protection against deception that capitalizes on our lack of knowledge in a specialty. That's worth protecting.
There's nothing in the current law about granting you immunity from criminal liability as long as you hire a licensed electrician, so that's a completely moot point.
>What if you don't and the house ignites in a fire one night caused by improper wiring, killing the future owners, are you responsible? Is the electrician?
In most jurisdictions you can already preform electrical work on your own property. If you install a ceiling fan should have to disclose to the new owner that it wasn't installed by a licensed electrician? Are you responsible for killing the future owner? There are scores of people installing their own light fixtures, where's the public outcry over all the dead homebuyers?
What happens when you hire the unlicensed kid next door to cut your grass, and he cuts off his foot?
What happens when an unlicensed painter falls off a ladder and kills himself?
If you want protection from damage caused by people you hire to work on your house, only hire contractors who are insured. Make them present proof of insurance before the job begins.
Fun fact: in California and New York, you are legally required to inform the new owner that the fan was not installed by a licensed electrician if the installation involved any more electrical work than simply plugging it into an outlet.
You would not be entirely responsible for killing the future owner...but yes, under the doctrine of negligence, you would be at least partially responsible for killing the future owner. In fact, this is one of the first things you learn in your first year of law school.
The unlicensed kid: That depends on how he cuts off his foot. Was he distracted? Was your wife distracting him at the time sunbathing nude next to the pool? Was he using your mower? Was your mower broken?
Unlicensed painter: Also depends on the specific facts. Was it his ladder? Why did he fall off the ladder? What did he fall onto? Would such a fall normally have killed a person? What special facts in this situation resulted in the painter's death?
Protection from damage: You're spot on. In fact, in Ohio, you're required to hire only licensed and bonded (i.e., insured) contractors for renovations or construction work. Moreover, contractors are required to provide proof of license and bond before they begin work or try to collect payment.
@learc83: the difference between professions requiring and not requiring licensure is the foreseeability of the risks. A reasonable person should be able to foresee the risk that a painter might fall from a ladder. A reasonable person might not be able to foresee the risks associated with installation of wiring by an unlicensed electrician.
>the difference between professions requiring and not requiring licensure is the foreseeability of the risks.
No, the difference is in the lobbying power of industry incumbents. A quick search will show that there are states where interior decorators, and trumpet players are required to be licensed.
I think the law can assume a reasonable person would be aware of the dangers of electricity. Most states have moved away from requiring gas pump attendants--is a reasonable person aware of the dangers of gasoline? If so why not the dangers of electricity?
You can. The ABA's licensing requirement does very little to constrain supply. There are way more lawyers graduating each year than there are jobs at big firms. So you can easily go on craigslist and find a lawyer who will work for $30 an hour to get some experience.
The reason you can not represent anyone other than yourself in court without passing the BAR examine is because the defendant might not be properly represented and cause problems such as mistrial or open up loads of appeals. Why? The bar examine is used to ensure that an attorney knows and understands the legal rules and procedures. That's it. If an attorney fails to object to a motion [on behalf of their client], fails to file a motion [on behalf of their client], or fails to respond to a claim or motion [on behalf of their client] then their client isn't being properly represented. Why can YOU represent YOURSELF? Because if you fail any of those things, well, it's your own fault. What is the number one topic we are failing to teach in our education system? BASIC [foundational] law and legal issues.
You have the right to represent yourself, but not another person or entity, which is what you would be doing if you attempted to represent your limited liability entity in court. It doesn't matter if you're the sole shareholder or not, you and the company are not one and the same.
Except that such logic seems to vanish in small claims court (where I can represent my corporation), and before the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (where I can represent my corporation)...which means that it's really not very logical at all.
The details of small claims courts vary wildly from state to state, but more importantly, they're not courts of general jurisdiction. They have severe restrictions on what they can and can't do, and the losing party is often entitled to a de novo trial in a court of general jurisdiction.
The USPTO appeals board you mentioned is not a court at all. It is an administrative body whose holdings are again subject to review in US District Court.
Small claims courts are not much different from arbitration. There are no consequences to not showing up or participating, as losing simply means that you can move the matter to a new (i.e., independent) case in a real courtroom with a real judge.
I cannot defend the USPTO; much of what they do is indefensible.
There's nothing wrong with certifying organizations, but there ought to be competition and free market choice. Leave it to the buyer to determine if they wish to hire a "State Certified Electrician" or "Professional Electricians" certified electrician, or the electrician with not credentials. But also place legal civil obligations on the buyer. "OH NO!" you scream because how can the buyer know what the local codes are and make sure the electrician is following them? The buyer needs to know and be educated to transfer that risk to the electrician. State in the contract that the electrician is responsible for any/all civil fines due to work they perform. The certifying (and competing) organizations can/will work with insurance companies to also transfer some risk off and away from the contractor.
The contractor and buyer still should be criminally liable for any willful noncompliance.
Consider what this guaranteed $150k will do to other incubators. YC is going to be so much more attractive to other incubators, the best startups may not bother to apply to other incubators.
Sure, there will be winners that go through other incubators, or no incubator at all, but this is definitely going to tilt the field towards YC.
YC still has limited capacity so that point is simply not valid. If you're not one of the lucky few to get in to YC and you want to do a start-up then you'll have to do without them.
Seems like a good side-project and I want in. I mostly do whatever visitors see: HTML, CSS, JS, some 'good' UI/design skills (+ hacking python/django most recently).
Manpacks is hilarious, super well done, and the undies are good too. I can't wait for them to start sending me shampoo, soap and all that stuff in my manpack. I hate shopping.
I too, hate shopping. I selected my daily man-uniform years ago, and know exactly what I like to wear -- I haven't changed my basic outfit in almost 5 years. Yes, I am that manly.
If manpacks added different colors of american apparel man-shirts (I like blue) and basic cargo man-shorts, I'd sign up today. In fact, I still might sign up today, but I'll have to go to K-Mart to get my reasonably priced man-shorts -- a trip I've been avoiding.
I would pay really good money for a service that made me look very good yet middle-of-the-road (i.e. not flamboyant or overly stylish). I freely admit that I want to be a follower when it comes to style/fashion and just simply conform to the latest trend in a manner that suits my face/body.
I'll look into that, but it would be nice if it could be commoditized and automated. Like if there was some webapp that presented you with some examples of styles to pick from, took your size information, and then periodically shipped you clothes matching your chosen parameters.
I've ran into this problem so many times I've developed a workaround using various applications.
Google maps on the iphone gets me the phone number. If I have to see a menu, UrbanSpoon or Yelp works sometimes. I don't even bother with mobile browsers.
I used to play high limit poker and it is quite common in the poker world for the best players to "share" themselves in a tournament or, more likely, in a game where the stakes are huge.
Being able to self-fund isn't always reason enough to self-fund. In this case, Joel may want to expand into 10,000 niches, but may worry whether the venture will be profitable. I'm just speculating. If there is VC willing to take some of the risk with him, for an equity share that he accepts and thinks is a good deal, is it still wrong for him to accept it? I don't think so.
